|
The MSJ posted:I found the best thread on the Civil War IMDB message board. I originally read this as "squibs" which to be honest would have been far better. "Black Widow Kills the Marvel Universe".
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Then Age of Ultron pumps the brakes on the villain's plan so they can get people out. It's not that they did it, it was how. It was a clunky scene inserted between two other scenes. Blend them. It was symptomatic of the whole movies incredibly clunky structure. In that case I did misread your argument on AoU, so I apologize for that. I certainly won't argue that the film had terrible editing problems. While they could have done them better, I'm still glad that they included those scenes, as they speak a lot to Captain America's character. He's not the one to seek glory in trying to stand toe to toe with godlike beings, he lets the (in some cases literal) gods on his team do that, while he rallies the relatively less powerful teammates to focus on protecting and evacuating civilians. I also see why you feel the way you do about the lack of on screen deaths in the two Avengers films, but that still doesn't excuse those ridiculous lines in BvS. I don't agree that the scene is intentional parody, but even if it was its still a poorly executed scene that ultimately detracts from the film. In fact, I would more easily excuse a bungled scene than one that pulls me out of the film on purpose just to take a jab at a rival studio.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I really wish War of the Worlds was better than it was Same but Battle: LA. And Cowboys and Aliens since that came out around that time. Until the stupid alien poo poo I thought it was a pretty ok western.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Z-man had ya'll covered "On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol... And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare, the contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics, up to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight)? Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance - in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. Is this not the attitude of today's hedonistic Last Man? Everything is permitted, you can enjoy everything, BUT deprived of its substance which makes it dangerous. Today's hedonism combines pleasure with constraint - it is no longer the old notion of the "right measure" between pleasure and constraint, but a kind of pseudo-Hegelian immediate coincidence of the opposites: action and reaction should coincide, the very thing which causes damage should already be the medicine. The ultimate example of it is arguably a "chocolate laxative," available in the US, with the paradoxical injunction "Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!", i.e., of the very thing which causes constipation. And is not a negative proof of the hegemony of this stance the fact that true unconstrained consumption (in all its main forms: drugs, free sex, smoking...) is emerging as the main danger? The fight against these dangers is one of the main investments of today's "biopolitics." Solutions are here desperately sought which would reproduce the paradox of the chocolate laxative." If you are wondering where that came from, it's in every book and guardian piece the man has ever written.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
quote:"On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: The man has a point. I mean, I'm sure missing out on the full experience of life due to being able to enjoy sweet tasting things without going into a diabetic coma.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:The man has a point. I mean, I'm sure missing out on the full experience of life due to being able to enjoy sweet tasting things without going into a diabetic coma. Hmm, yes. It seems like you have sagely ferreted out the point.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
If you ban both block-quoting Zizek and no-content "it's good/it's bad" poo poo, is there anything left here? 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Danger posted:Hmm, yes. It seems like you have sagely ferreted out the point. "At all times we must maximize our sugar intakes" -Slavoj Zizek
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:"At all times we must maximize our sugar intakes" -Slavoj Zizek Where would he get off telling someone else how much white poo poo to put in their body?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Danger posted:Hmm, yes. It seems like you have sagely ferreted out the point. I don't know how I feel about his "point" or how it relates to entertainment. But in general I think using the ways people allow themselves to enjoy things without risk to their health, or to suit their own tastes or what's right for them, to cultural homogenization to be utterly ridiculous and pompous.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
to be fair, zizek looks like a guy who likes his 'sugar' and 'substance,' if you catch my drift... (i'm saying he looks like a slob) he's still right, though. TFRazorsaw posted:The man has a point. I mean, I'm sure missing out on the full experience of life due to being able to enjoy sweet tasting things without going into a diabetic coma. you're looking at this from the utilitarian rationalist, neoliberal (neo liberal gets replaced with n-word, now?) progressive perspective where anything that makes banal consumption easier and its consequences less apparent is good. but increased consumption and less consequence aren't necessarily good things. we need restraint. we need consequence to inform that restraint. this anti-rationalism can also be applied more broadly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJTeNTZtGU edit: on the subject of films more specifically, the smartest point kevin smith ever made was in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, where he pointed out the obvious irony that a work as emotionally harrowing and viscerally explicit as Saving Private Ryan was rated-R, effectively barring it from being viewed by the younger people who are perhaps in the most need to seeing it and reckoning with the horrors and sacrifices of war. Die Another Day, on the other hand, is apparently more appropriate for unaccompanied teenagers. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 16:30 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:(neo liberal gets replaced with n-word, now?) It gets thrown around a lot in DnD, usually misapplied.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I don't know how I feel about his "point" or how it relates to entertainment. But in general I think using the ways people allow themselves to enjoy things without risk to their health, or to suit their own tastes or what's right for them, to cultural homogenization to be utterly ridiculous and pompous.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:If you ban both block-quoting Zizek and no-content "it's good/it's bad" poo poo, is there anything left here? We are Living in the End Times.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:It gets thrown around a lot in DnD, usually misapplied. I think YCS (which is now The Salt Mines?) specifically prompted the filter.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:I think YCS (which is now The Salt Mines?) specifically prompted the filter. Salt Mines for mining Bernie tears I believe.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
I find it hard to condemn "banal consumption", when it's used by these types to condemn the masses for being "fat", brainwashed tools, when the reality is that it's the only thing available to them and that options that make it safer and easier to avoid doing things like going hungry or sabotaging their own health. It's the same thing as a "nutritionist" who thumbs their nose at a parent who buys their kids McDonald's instead of organic food even though they don't have the time or money to make it. Sure, there's a problem in the system that creates a situation that forces her to do that, but what comfort or even use is that when they don't have the power to do anything else? These people who jeer at their students for being idiots, who condemn people for being "content" speak from and enjoy a privilege themselves. Their enlightenment offers me nothing. As for your link, I dunno about Foucalt. I can see what he says about modern medicine and how it's contributed to modern ableism, but I've also seen his words used by certain people to justify how people like me would be "so much more beautiful" if I were unmedicated. I've seen what that would be like myself, and I don't bloody well like it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:It gets thrown around a lot in DnD, usually misapplied. How neo liberal.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I find it hard to condemn "banal consumption", when it's used by these types to condemn the masses for being "fat", brainwashed tools, when the reality is that it's the only thing available to them and that options that make it safer and easier to avoid doing things like going hungry or sabotaging their own health. It's the same thing as a "nutritionist" who thumbs their nose at a parent who buys their kids McDonald's instead of organic food even though they don't have the time or money to make it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I find it hard to condemn "banal consumption", when it's used by these types to condemn the masses for being "fat", brainwashed tools, when the reality is that it's the only thing available to them and that options that make it safer and easier to avoid doing things like going hungry or sabotaging their own health. It's the same thing as a "nutritionist" who thumbs their nose at a parent who buys their kids McDonald's instead of organic food even though they don't have the time or money to make it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Yeah I mean Zizek of all people isn't going to condemn food choices. The man literally eats garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
like, we're literally approaching this point where the zizek, foucault, and bill burr are all in this united front of upsettingly persuasive derision of this modern attitude that "fastfood is perfectly fine for you."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Here's the same point with less food analogies to trip folks up: "I think today, more and more, love is emerging as something dangerous and subversive. Think about how you are addressed in your everyday life by society, what society demands of you. It’s basically a kind of slightly spiritual, pseudo-Buddhist hedonism. Ideology is telling you: “be faithful to yourself”, “realize your true potential”, “experiment with your life”, “try all different options”, “don’t fixate yourself on a certain stable identity”, “life is dynamic, fluid” and so on, and so on. And I claim that within this economy, not only is stable love/passionate love emerging as an obstacle to your “authentic development”, but even the crucial dimension of love is gradually disappearing. What is love? As Alain Badiou, our good friend, put it in his wonderful book In Praise of Love, there is always something traumatic/extremely violent in love. Love is a permanent emergency state. You fall in love. And it’s crucial [to know] that in English and in French we use this expression; you “fall” in love. You lose control. I claim that love, the experience of passionate love, is the most elementary metaphysical experience, it’s a platonic experience. In the sense of, you lead your easy, daily life, you meet [up with] friends, go to parties and whatever, everything is normal, maybe here and there a one-night stand, and then you passionately fall in love, [and] everything is ruined. The entire balance of your life is lost. Everything is subordinated to this one person. I almost cannot imagine in normal daily life, outside war and so on, a more violent experience than that of love. And I think [this is] which is why all the “advisers” that we [supposedly] need today are trying precisely to domesticate or erase this excess of love. It’s as if love is too poisonous and then they, [i.e.] all the marriage and dating agencies, tell you that the trick is how to find yourself in love without falling in love. This idea came to me when on one of my Transatlantic flights I read one of those stupid airline journals and there was a text in there, in big letters, claiming: “We will enable you to find yourself in love, without the fall”, without this dangerous exposure. And I think this fits perfectly to our daily narcissistic metaphysics. You know the old story that I repeat all the time; we want coffee without caffeine, we want beer without alcohol, and we want love without its dangerous moment, where you get lost. " Now in light of that assertion, consider the ending disaster montage from Superman the Motion Picture.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
It goes to a larger issue; "banal consumption" was brought up by someone else in this very thread. But the core idea of "the consequences being less apparent" and him apparently not condemning personal choices misses the fact that some people don't well have them, and we are not kneecapping ourselves by giving such people options. Removing the sense of danger from movies is a different issue I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about, but waxing poetic about the so-called artificialness of non-fat cream and speaks to a larger sense of arrogance I feel every time one of you posts a quote of his.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:It goes to a larger issue; "banal consumption" was brought up by someone else in this very thread. But the core idea of "the consequences being less apparent" and him apparently not condemning personal choices misses the fact that some people don't well have them, and we are not kneecapping ourselves by giving such people options. TFRazorsaw posted:but waxing poetic about the so-called artificialness of non-fat cream and speaks to a larger sense of arrogance I feel every time one of you posts a quote of his. This is one of those reactions to something that just puts my brain in neutral trying to figure out where to even begin a response. edit: I think the Motion Picture example I gave earlier illustrates a 'comic book movie' making a much more interesting point on this exact topic (to the point of prescience maybe). Danger fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:The Z-man quote doesn't condemn individual choices. At all. The stuff about food is one half of an analogy, the second half of which you apparently missed completely. I'll expand a little bit since this is more snark than content. Z-money starts with the proposition that decaf coffee and sugar-free beverages are inherently absurd, since they both lack the "substance" of the original, the things that make them so attractive and dangerous in the first place. (I say this as someone who has had a recurrent caffeine addiction throughout my life.) Analogously, virtual reality is absurd because it's reality with the rough edges filed off, and in the context of this discussion this can be extended to mean films depicting violence without any consequences -- immediate or long-term. War without casualties, violence without wounds, etc. Buildings fall but no one is inside and the debris doesn't kill anyone. The brilliant part is the chocolate laxative analogy: the supremely absurd notion that a society can treat or prevent social violence by providing sanitized media in place of films that show how awful war is to people. This doesn't really do the original quote justice, but hopefully it can help TFR parse it without getting hung up too badly on the idea of food.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:The brilliant part is the chocolate laxative analogy: the supremely absurd notion that a society can treat or prevent social violence by providing sanitized media in place of films that show how awful war is to people. 'It's absurd' is a lovely, lovely argument. Zizek's argument would suggest that gladiatorial combat was an essential tool in pacifying the Romans, that ISIS YouTube stuff videos are to push peace and understanding. The opposite is true.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:War without casualties, violence without wounds, etc. [Civil War spoilers]Not sure how it ties into that precisely, but it's interesting to note that Rhodes ends up paralyzed and consequences are shown more or less realistically. By the end of the film he's relearning to walk using an exoskeleton that's not unlike real world therapy methods, as opposed to some technomagical complete repair of the spinal column or what have you, and it kind of surprised me considering this is a world where they build entire synthetic human bodies. It's a selective depiction of consequences, and the scene strongly feels like an acknowledgement of injuries real-world soldiers sustain. Like they deliberately avoided having some kind of Stark Industries artificial spine and showing him walking around, because it could have been seen as disrespectful to people who do get injured in real life combat and do have to relearn to walk using similar gear.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Fangz posted:'It's absurd' is a lovely, lovely argument. Zizek's argument would suggest that gladiatorial combat was an essential tool in pacifying the Romans, that ISIS YouTube stuff videos are to push peace and understanding. The opposite is true. He's not advocating for snuff movies ya goof. In fact, the opposite: "The authentic XXth century passion to penetrate the Real Thing (ultimately, the destructive Void) through the cobweb of semblances which constitute our reality thus culminates in the thrill of the Real as the ultimate 'effect,' sought after from digitalized special effects through reality TV and amateur pornography up to snuff movies. Snuff movies which deliver the 'real thing' are perhaps the ultimate truth of virtual reality." In other words, watching a snuff movie is equally as 'safe' as watching a blockbuster - for the viewer of the film. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
we've now approached the point where we are patronizing the poor, lowly people who 'don't have a choice,' and thus naturalizing our condition of social superiority by 'giving them options.' we're still acting like critique of these conditions is condescending.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:how do y'all feel about the skyscrapers being empty in Fight Club? I live and work in Wilmington Delaware, where Fight Club is set, and entire skyscrapers being empty is actually a real thing Wilmington is infamous for, since most of the offices are empty shell rentals that only exist so banks and corporations can take advantage of Delaware's unique business laws. It's loving spooky being inside one of those places because it's floor after floor of empty rooms with the occasional phone.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:I live and work in Wilmington Delaware, where Fight Club is set, and entire skyscrapers being empty is actually a real thing Wilmington is infamous for, since most of the offices are empty shell rentals that only exist so banks and corporations can take advantage of Delaware's unique business laws. It's loving spooky being inside one of those places because it's floor after floor of empty rooms with the occasional phone. Congratulations, this is the first interesting thing posted in this thread in probably a year or more
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
If anyone is going to make an analogy, then a speaker should be open to the implications that analogy has and what values you appear to hold in doing so. Privileged people speak of danger as an allure, and then remain gleeful about the edge they dance on, and then effectively brag to others that seek alternatives that they're living a more full existence. I'm weary of danger, I'm weary of my various neuroses making it harder to enjoy myself, to express myself, to eat or even travel. I am content to find substance in the imitations that give me a modicum of ease among all of these, however minor they are. But virtual entertainment, I will agree, has a dangerous power to influence what people think about reality, about how people interact with each other, about how wars are fought and won. That's why I've said again, that this thread has given me something to think about. But I also don't agree with the way this all gets filtered, through the words of a man content to criticize the system while talking about how students are idiots. The "cream without fat" is just one facet of all that. The man is a philosophical Alan Moore with a less impressive beard. If you think I'm not getting the point, so be it. I guess there's really nothing else to say.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
So ur content with not understanding?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
If that's the way you want to see it, then so be it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:[Civil War spoilers]Not sure how it ties into that precisely, but it's interesting to note that Rhodes ends up paralyzed and consequences are shown more or less realistically. By the end of the film he's relearning to walk using an exoskeleton that's not unlike real world therapy methods, as opposed to some technomagical complete repair of the spinal column or what have you, and it kind of surprised me considering this is a world where they build entire synthetic human bodies. It's a selective depiction of consequences, and the scene strongly feels like an acknowledgement of injuries real-world soldiers sustain. Like they deliberately avoided having some kind of Stark Industries artificial spine and showing him walking around, because it could have been seen as disrespectful to people who do get injured in real life combat and do have to relearn to walk using similar gear. Interesting. How does this fit into the broader themes of the movie? I wasn't planning on seeing it, but if there's enough interesting stuff in there, I will.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
The trick with 'decaffeinated' films is that we are not actually talking about onscreen (diegetic) violence at all. The purest example of decaffeination is actually in the variety of fan-edits that you can find on the internet:  The expression of faith in Prometheus is the unbearable, dangerous element. The most famous example of an intolerably dangerous element is, of course, Jar Jar Binks. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:04 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:If that's the way you want to see it, then so be it. TFRazorsaw posted:If you think I'm not getting the point, so be it. I guess there's really nothing else to say.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The trick with 'decaffeinated' films is that we are not actually talking about onscreen (diegetic) violence at all. Lmao at someone editing out literally the entire point of Prometheus.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Well I mean when literally everyone is telling u you're misunderstanding what's being said & your reply is I think I understand it just fine, and that it amounts to horseshit. By saying "so be it", I'm perfectly fine with you thinking otherwise and thinking me an idiot or whatever else you're considering for it. But I'm not gonna lie and say the exact opposite of what my brain is thinking, either.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 19:37
|
|